JPEG Compression Levels in Photoshop and Lightroom

Determining the ideal JPEG quality setting in both Photoshop and Lightroom can be challenging, because we often see two different values to choose from. Photoshop gives us compression levels from 0 to 12 when saving JPEG images through the “Save” or “Save As” dialog, while Lightroom only allows us to input a percentage. While percentages are easier to understand than numbers from 0 to 12, as we relate to 100% being the “best image quality” easier, Adobe also created a confusion as to what number represents what percentage, since the ranges of numbers are not provided in any of the help documents. The truth is, the percentages we see in Lightroom do not really scale from real 0 to 100 in single digits. Adobe simply mapped the 0 to 12 scale to the percentage scale. This ultimately means that changing from one number to another, like from 85% to 90% might make no difference whatsoever in compression or image size, while changing from 84% to 85% would make a big difference.

Below are the different screens we are used to seeing. First, here is the screen that shows up when you click “Save” or “Save As” and choose JPEG in Photoshop:

As you can see, the values you can choose from a represented in a number scale from 0 to 12. And here is the Lightroom export screen:

Here we see the representation of the JPEG compression scale from 0% to 100%.

Now let’s take a quick look at the table below, where the 0-12 values from Photoshop are mapped to percentages:

PS JPEG Compression #

PS Scale Name

Equivalent in %

Sample File Size

Space Saving in % *

* Space Savings represented relative to the largest file size at 100% Quality (27.3 MB) and full resolution (captured with a 20 MP camera)

0

Low

0-7%

2.2 MB

1240%

1

Low

8-15%

2.4 MB

1138%

2

Low

16-23%

3.0 MB

910%

3

Low

24-30%

3.4 MB

803%

4

Low

31-38%

3.9 MB

700%

5

Med

39-46%

4.6 MB

594%

6

Med

47-53%

5.2 MB

525%

7

Med

54-61%

5.8 MB

470%

8

High

62-69%

7.8 MB

350%

9

High

70-76%

9.8 MB

278%

10

Max

77-84%

12.9 MB

212%

11

Max

85-92%

17.6 MB

155%

12

Max

93-100%

27.3 MB

0%

So what does this mean? It basically means that some numbers don’t matter at all, while others do quite a bit when we use the percentage scale. Choosing say 80% quality, is the same thing as choosing 77% or 84%. Until you get to 85%, nothing really changes. The same goes for 90% – it is no different than picking 85% quality!

Photoshop’s Save for Web

In my original article I wrongly stated that the “Save for Web” feature of Photoshop worked similarly as the percentage field in Lightroom, which is wrong (thanks to Aaron Shepard for catching that!). In fact, the “Save for Web” feature of Photoshop works differently, as it uses a different compression algorithm compared to the 0-12 numbers or the percentage in Lightroom. Here, every number from 0 to 100 matters and the file size can vary in size considerably.

Here is the “Save for Web” screen in Photoshop:

What’s important to note about this screen, is that it is optimized for smaller resolution files that are meant to be published online. As you can see, there are more ways to customize the final JPEG and you can decide whether you want to preserve the EXIF data (Metadata field) or strip it out completely, along with the Color Profile.

Best JPEG Compression Level

If you have been using 12 or 100% quality when exporting JPEG images all the time, you probably ended up with a lot of bloated images that are huge in size for no good reason. The thing is, you are defeating the purpose of the JPEG format when going with 100% all the time, because you are applying very little compression, which results in huge files. Not only does this increase your storage needs, but it also does not make websites that allow uploading images happy, as you are potentially increasing their storage and bandwidth costs as well. While many websites have gotten smart about letting people upload huge images by applying compression on them, very few sites do it smartly. So why waste all that bandwidth and storage by exporting to 100% all the time?

My baseline recommendation is to use 77% in Lightroom, or value 10 for JPEG compression in Photoshop. It often results in roughly 200% or more in space savings and usually preserves enough detail in the scene without adding visible artifacts. There are rare situations where 77% can create banding in the sky, so if you see such problems, bumping up by one level to 85% will usually take care of that. I practically never use anything higher.

For a lot of photos though, even 77% can be overkill. If you look at the above table, going below 10 results in pretty significant space savings. If you want to reduce the image size even further, try pushing quality down to 62% or even 54% to see if the result is acceptable. Please note that the results will vary from image to image. Some photographs will do fine at low compression levels, while others won’t look their best.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

If you enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to our email newsletter to receive biweekly emails notifying you of the latest articles posted on the website. Email Address First Name

By checking this box I consent to the use of my information, as detailed in the Privacy Policy.

Related articles:

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is the author and founder of Photography Life, based out of Denver, Colorado. He is recognized as one of the leading educators in the photography industry, conducting workshops, producing educational videos and frequently writing content for Photography Life. You can follow him on Instagram, 500px and Facebook. Read more about Nasim here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

1) Sandip Mehta

November 21, 2015 at 7:47 pm

Hi

I always export at the “12” setting in Photoshop and use JPEGmini for final compression prior to web upload or print. Additionally, I use JPEGmini Lightroom Plugin for the same effect. JPEG setting in Lightroom is “10”.

Sandip, JPEGmini is pretty sweet, because it does the proper compression level for you. I wanted to add a word or two about it, but did not want to make it look like a commercial, as I am writing another article about it.

At the end you said the image quality will change with different images, and I do agree with that. I think it is most obvious with gradients. What is your experience and recommendations for compressing images which have gradients, like sky fading from blue to orange.

Stefan, yes, indeed, gradients will often create problems at higher compression levels. So if you see posterization / banding in images, the only option is to move up in quality, which results in obviously larger files…

Nasim, A while back you stated you used 80%, as you saw no benefit to going higher. So I switched from my usual 70 – 75% and raised it to 80. I’m happy with that. However, I found that while the lower %’s work well with large, close subjects (ie: family shots), I find the need to increase the levels to 90% or higher for landscapes and macros, as when I send them via email, it allows the recipient to zoom in and see better detail (not needed for Christmas dinners etc.).

And although super short, this article definitely clears up some confusion I had between the 1 – 12 and the percentages choices. The big chart is worth a thousand words. Now if only I could figure out the format options: baseline standard/optimized and progressive.

Steve, as you can see from the above table, 80% is really the same thing as 77% in Lightroom, so my recommendation has not really changed. And you are right about sometimes having the need to increase that number, as it all depends on what’s in the photograph. Some images are very fine at higher compression, while other images require lower compression. This is particularly true for gradients – lower quality can introduce posterization / banding and other issues.

As for Baseline Standard vs Optimized vs Progressive, I would stick with “Baseline Optimized”, since it optimizes the image a bit more and decreases image size further. The Baseline Standard JPEG compression algorithm was created to make standard JPEG images recognizable by all web browsers, while optimized back in the day had issues with some browsers. Today, every browser supports both, so it is no longer a concern. As for the last option, I would not worry about it either, as it was initially created to make JPEGs load faster when using slow dial-up connections. With that algorithm, images display gradually as they are loaded.

Thanks for an informative post Nasim. The table was very useful, I have up to now been saving at 85%. Do you think the space savings would be similar if the table was applied to DxO Optics 10? Can it be applied to DxO Optics 10?

Michael, just tried this out in DxO – it works like the Save for Web feature in Photoshop, where every percentage point impacts the size of the image. Generally though, yes, the compression algorithm seems to work somewhat similarly as Photoshop and Lightroom, so my suggestion to keep it at around 75-80% mark still stands depending on the subject. In some cases you might need to push higher if you see any banding / posterization issues or artifacts.

Nasim, I’m flabbergasted, because this article seems to have no connection to reality at all. Photoshop’s Save As JPEG and Save for Web scales have no relation to each other at all, because they are based on different sets of JPEG algorithms. They were designed at different times and use entirely different approaches. And you can’t possibly have tested Save for Web’s scale or you would know that every single change in percentage point brings a slightly different file size.

Don’t look at the file in your operating system, which just tells you the amount of disk space allotted, including unused space to bring it up to the system’s increment. Look instead at the estimated file size in Save for Web, which tells you the amount of actual data being saved. For every change in percentage point, it goes up or down. What’s more, there are certain break points where Save for Web changes algorithms, creating a bigger jump. For instance, going from 20 to 19 calls up a different algorithm, giving much small size but much lower image quality. Save as JPEG does something similar, but there’s no direct relation to Save for Web’s percentage scale or break points.

You also don’t seem to understand the point or nature of JPEG compression. It’s LOSSY, meaning you’re throwing away data, whether the loss is immediately visible or not. Just as you want to keep the highest possible bit depth and stick to lossless compression of RAW data, you should NEVER compress JPEG data any more than you have to if you are going to edit it again. Compressing at higher levels should ONLY be done AFTER editing, for a final presentation image, such as on the Web. Actually, for optimum editing, you shouldn’t be using JPEG at all, but if you MUST use JPEG, NEVER shoot or store the image at less than 100% (or 12). It’s like tossing half your work down the drain.

JPEG compression ALWAYS degrades the image by throwing out information. And the more you compress it, the more it is degraded. This becomes VERY clear when you try to edit the image later in any substantial way. It’s a lot more serious damage than the lossy RAW compression you warn against. Whether or not you can spot the difference visually immediately after compression is totally irrelevant!

Aaron, thanks for catching that – I was indeed wrong with the “Save for Web” part of the original article, which I have taken care of and credited to you. Save for Web certainly does work differently and every point makes a change in file size. So I apologize for making that mistake and not double checking it before publishing the article.

Now in regards to your third paragraph, I never stated anywhere in the article that JPEG was not lossy. In the summary section, I specifically said “the thing is, you are defeating the purpose of the JPEG format when going with 100% all the time, because you are applying very little compression, which results in huge files.” If you notice, I used the words “very little compression”, in which I am implying that there is already compression taking place even at full quality. Yes, JPEG is indeed a lossy format and lots of data is lost when an image is converted to an 8-bit image.

Where I disagree with you entirely, just like in the other article regarding JPEGmini, is in not compressing JPEG further. I am not sure why anyone would ever edit a JPEG image when they have the RAW file. Now if you shoot JPEG only, or you have a practice to throw away your RAW files after editing, then perhaps it might not be a good idea to compress JPEG files further, but I personally always keep my original RAW files for potential editing in the future. And if I do have JPEG images lying around, I would never consider trying to edit those aside from basic cropping. Why even attempt to edit a flat 8-bit file? Highlight and shadow detail are practically not there and altering things like White Balance will result in all kinds of funky stuff. So why even go there? If I have JPEG images, they are from my iPhone or perhaps they are older images that I don’t particularly care about. Those are not for editing, which is why I don’t mind applying more compression on them to save space. So I agree with your last sentence, where you stated that you should not be using JPEG for editing at all!

I have to admit, I chuckled at the article too. Above all, I’m not sure JPEG warrants such a long “scientific analysis” on how an arbitrary program scales its compression levels in the saving function…

The most important facts of the article should have been:

1.) Use lossless RAW when you can 2.) If you must use jpeg, use the highest setting if there’s a chance you might want to edit that file again 3.) If you’re saving it as an end product and simply want to use the best trade-off, it depends on the image. An image that is not easily compressed (noisy, lots of colours, lots of detail etc) will require a higher quality setting (closer to max), a simple image that easier compressed a lower one

But analyzing compression rates on an arbitrary image is seriously overkill, especially since the results depend on the image itself…

The thing you are calling the “space savings in percent” is inversely related to the words you are using to describe it. If you have something which takes up 3MB instead of 10MB, the space savings is 7MB or, if you would like to express that in percent, 70% of the original 10MB. While those 7MB savings are also 233% of the final 3MB, this is not how people think. A stated savings of 200% indicates that it now takes up -10MB instead of 10MB, which obviously doesn’t make any sense, and is why you never see anything for sale marked more than 100% savings.

Scott, thank you for your feedback. Initially, I had it done with the percentage scale representing 100% of the original image, but decided to change to this route, as I thought it would actually be easier to understand. I added a footnote to the table to clarify this, but looks like it is still confusing. I will go ahead and update it to 100% per your suggestion.

In the old days disk was expensive. Today, disk is cheap. I have 16TB installed in my computer, and in addition to that external 4TB network drives, and rotating multiple 2-4TB drives in my safe. I only shoot RAW, and I only process RAW files. They are what takes up the most disk space.

The JPEG files in comparison take so little even at 100% that I don’t even care how much loss there would be at lower percentages. JPEG still compresses even at 100%. I don’t want it compressing even more for the sake of tiny amounts of space no matter how much loss there is. I prefer not to have to worry about it, compare different settings, or investigate if anyone else can notice the loss. Time and quality are more important to me, so I save at 100% and know that I have the best quality that is possible for a JPEG file, and I move on to the next photo. I don’t care about the size.

If I were that tight on my disk, to worry about minor JPEG file size differences, I would process the JPEG file at 100%, and upload it to my website, and then delete it off my disk. I would still have the RAW file and could download the JPEG from my site any time I needed it. Or I could reprocess the RAW. After learning different techniques with my software, I have at times gone back and reprocessed different images, which is a very nice feature of the digital days.

I used to spend a lot of money on consumables such as chemicals, paper, film, etc … (in addition to all the expensive developing and enlarging equipment), so by comparison a few disk drives is nothing. If you are spending a lot of time worrying about minor file size changes, then I would wonder how much disk do you have in comparison to the amount of investment you have in your gear?

Geez, I sure hope there aren’t any pro photographers here that swear by RAW and like to submit their work to Reuters. Given their recently announced “no RAW” policy, this article comes in very timely. Maybe my boatload of jpegs WILL come in handy one day. Anyone know Reuter’s ‘freelancer’ hotline number? Maybe I can get a jump on the competition.

Nasim, something puzzling that I’ve seen at times is that, for example, the estimated file size for Photoshop quality 5 is actually a little smaller than for Photoshop quality 4. Have you ever noticed anything like that?

At the risk of reiterating what Nasim and Aaron have said, it’s important to bear in mind that you can’t compare Lightroom’s JPEG quality settings wIth any other application because it’s unique unto itself. Interestingly, 0 quality does not mean zero quality as this setting can produce quite decent results – better than many other programmes at say, quality 50. In Lightroom, 0-100 is in effect 0-12 as Lightroom maps its 0-100 quality scale to only 13 different quality settings so that quality changes occur in discrete steps, not in a linear fashion. This explains why quality 7 looks identical to quality 0 and quality 54 looks identical to quality 61 – but quite different when you increase it just one point – to 62. Even more interestingly, Photoshop’s “Save as JPEG” dialogue comprising 13 (!) quality settings seems to mirror Lightroom’s behaviour in adjusting JPEG quality. Whether this is real or merely coincidence is not clear.

In contrast, the ‘Save for Web” option in Photoshop clearly deviates from Lightroom’s behaviour as shown by the fact that a quality setting of 54 looks different to a setting of 61 whereas in Lightroom these two values produce an identical result.

Thus, while there is some (partial) correlation between Lightroom and Photoshop, this entirely falls down when comparing with quality settings in other applications. Although other applications may use 0-100 quality scales, these are entirely unrelated to those in Photoshop and Lightroom. Different applications implement these apparently similar settings in entirely different ways using different mathematical algorithms.

So, those who use the maximum quality setting for their JPEGs are in all likelihood wasting a lot of disk space, upload bandwidth and opening speed on the web unnecessarily. On the other hand, those blindly using a lower setting involve themselves in a lot of trial and error and risk showing posterization and other artefacts in their uploaded images. JPEGminiPro, if it truly does what it says on the tin, looks like manna from heaven. I just took the plunge and bought it.

When trying to export pics from Lightroom, I get the “not enough space error”. So if I “edit in” from Lightroom to Photoshop, then export through Photoshop it works. With that being said my problem is after I get the pic onto Photoshop it doesnt have the same quality so ultimately losing picture quality just to get the edited picture saved. Pretty new to Photoshop, is there something I’m not doing right?

Question: What is the relationship between (1) reducing a JPEG quality index (any of them, be it 0-13 or %) VERSUS (b) changing the number of “pixels on the long side”? Would it be better to lower the “pixels on the long side” but maintain a high quality level, i.e., a low level of lossy compression. Or is it better to just specify a lower level of quality and let the software decide on the best means to achieve that quality?

I am similarly curious as to the effect of reducing DPI versus lowering a quality index.

I will not be surprised if this is too esoteric for anyone to have tested, but given this particular crowd I also won’t be surprised if some of you HAVE tested it!

I think you are in a muddle? Your question highlights a widely misunderstood area of digital imaging. The JPEG quality setting is not really comparable to the pixel resolution. It’s an apples and pears question. Pixel count (resolution) and compression level are two different animals. If you need a certain display size, then that is the size you have to set. If you need say, 1920px on the long side because that is required for say, a competition or because your image needs to be a certain size for satisfactory screen display, then 1920px is what you need to use. Once you have set your size, you can set the quality (compression level) according to the maximum file size allowed, how good you need/want your image to look when displayed or how fast you want it to open. You can have any combination of size and quality – large (quality high, medium or low), medium (quality high, medium or low) and small (quality high, medium or low). How you mix and match is up to you according to circumstance. It doesn’t require testing because (a) it’s been tested to death by those better qualified than you and me and (b) because it’s a matter of choice and circumstance.

“I am similarly curious as to the effect of reducing DPI versus lowering a quality index.”

First, DPI (dots per inch) is the wrong term to use when discussing digital images. The correct term is PPI (pixels per inch). Unfortunately, the two terms are often used interchangeably as if they were the same thing. They are not. PPI defines how large your image can be printed. DPI describes the number of ink dots laid down per inch by a print device. It bears no relation to PPI.

Second, if by DPI you mean the resolution figure (e.g. 72, 96, etc,) entered in the Image Size box of the Export dialogue, the answer is that it’s completely irrelevant. That number has absolutely no bearing on screen or projected image display. PPI resolution does not exist (even as a concept) in the binary, digital domain (the world of video/computer/projector screens, hard drives, graphics cards or processor chips).

The only resolution that matters or has any effect on web or screen is the pixel dimensions e.g. 1024x 720. You can put any figure you like in the resolution box – 7.2ppi, 72ppi, 720ppi, 7200ppi, 72000ppi – the images will all look (and be) identical because PPI has nothing to do with screen display, is irrelevant in this context and is ignored by the software. PPI resolution only applies if you are sending your image to a printer for printing out on paper or some other physical medium.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Footer

Site Menu

Privacy & Cookies: Our partners will collect data and use cookies for ad personalization and measurement. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, please see our Privacy Policy